Think you're a good EHM GM? Our GM Challenges dare you to take over a team and make it a winner. The Challenge Forum and Centre are the hubs of our Challenges.
bruins72 wrote:I'd like to get everyone's feedback on an idea I had for changing the rules on trading in challenges. As you know, we like to keep these challenges challenging. We also like to keep the identity of the team somewhat intact. Even with our current rules on trading, which are fairly restrictive, we're seeing complete overhauls of team but season 4 or 5 in some cases. What I'd like to do is sort of ween everyone off of trading as the progress in seasons. For example, in the current rules, you can't trade in the first season but starting with season two you're allowed one trade (up to 2 players in and 2 players out) per season. What if we were to change that up? For example...
Season 1 - No Trade
Season 2 - 1 Trade (2 in - 2 out)
Season 3 - 1 Trade (1 in - 1 out)
Season 4 - No Trade
Season 5 - 1 Trade (1 in - 1 out)
Season 6 - No Trade
Season 7 - 1 Trade (1 in - 1 out)
Is that too restrictive? If so, how might you adjust it? Let me know what you guys think.
I think that is a great idea!
The firt seasons it's ok but people ends up with completely new lines too fast, unrealistic lines like Malkin-Ovetchkin-Kovalchuk. As it's now you don't have to plan the development for years, trading for a great team is too easy.
Heck I even think the second no-trade should be at the third season, just to keep the original challenge line-up a little longer.
Thanks, VD. I thought of putting the 2nd no trade in season 3 too and was worried people might find it a bit too restrictive. I think the big key is going to be eliminating the 2 in - 2 out trades. It seems like you can trade a couple hot young prospect, who may be over-valued by the trade engine, for a star player. That's not what we want to see people doing. I'd be okay with trading 2 for 2 or 2 for 1 if it were trades like a 2nd line winger and a 3rd pairing defenseman for a top 4 defenseman or a 1st line wing (but not a star). I'd like to see slight upgrades but not drastic ones. Or realistic depth moves.
bruins72 wrote:Thanks, VD. I thought of putting the 2nd no trade in season 3 too and was worried people might find it a bit too restrictive. I think the big key is going to be eliminating the 2 in - 2 out trades. It seems like you can trade a couple hot young prospect, who may be over-valued by the trade engine, for a star player. That's not what we want to see people doing. I'd be okay with trading 2 for 2 or 2 for 1 if it were trades like a 2nd line winger and a 3rd pairing defenseman for a top 4 defenseman or a 1st line wing (but not a star). I'd like to see slight upgrades but not drastic ones. Or realistic depth moves.
Agreed
The trade-engine is just too easy to exploit and people will do it, just because they can. Even 1on1's are exploitable like when trading away a scrap young player for good second-liners or sometime ever topliners.
I think its a good idea to further restrict trades, but having different rules every season wll make things a bit confusing, and I'm sure we'll see many users making mistakes. How about no trades first two seasons, and then only 1-1 trades?
If we want to further restrict changing the core of the team, we could also put further restrictions on the UFA signings.
Lidas wrote:I think its a good idea to further restrict trades, but having different rules every season wll make things a bit confusing, and I'm sure we'll see many users making mistakes. How about no trades first two seasons, and then only 1-1 trades?
If we want to further restrict changing the core of the team, we could also put further restrictions on the UFA signings.
I think UFAs are much more difficult to exploit and trades is the real problem. I think people want to do something with the team the second season, just to fill an obvious hole or put some of their own identity to the team.
Maybe 1-1 every season with the limit of very good reputation on the incoming player? Trading away stars for a prospect isn't a big problem as you have develop the prospect, but trading for stars destroys some of the franchise-thinking. I know the reputation can be screwed up, but it's better than nothing if you ask me.
I think reputation can be easily used for this. We can say for example that players' reputation must be equal in 1-1 trades. And disallow trading for star players (or even very good) in 2-2/2-1 trades.
Another way of making trades more challenging is to define certain minimum amount of games that player must play in NHL before trade. This way you can't trade away prospect from you farm team that haven't never stepped in first team. First you have to develop him to play in NHL. Say 60 games, e.g. two seasons moving from farm to NHL and vice versa.
All this complicates the rules again... But obviously, something will be neccessary.
McQwak wrote:I think reputation can be easily used for this. We can say for example that players' reputation must be equal in 1-1 trades. And disallow trading for star players (or even very good) in 2-2/2-1 trades.
Another way of making trades more challenging is to define certain minimum amount of games that player must play in NHL before trade. This way you can't trade away prospect from you farm team that haven't never stepped in first team. First you have to develop him to play in NHL. Say 60 games, e.g. two seasons moving from farm to NHL and vice versa.
All this complicates the rules again... But obviously, something will be neccessary.
Sounds like the UFA rules but for trading, I like it! You would only need to take one screenshot per traded player and the rules only complicates thing one day per season (the day of the trade). I you ask me the positives weighs up the negatives.
Allowing any kind of 2-1 or 2-2 trades (star for star) would still make trades like (in the current challenge) basically Horcoff or Hemsky for Malkin possible, a big problem.
visualdarkness wrote:Allowing any kind of 2-1 or 2-2 trades (star for star) would still make trades like (in the current challenge) basically Horcoff or Hemsky for Malkin possible, a big problem.
Then we can disallow trading for star reputated players. You can trade them out, but not in. That could be enough and the problem with bringing those superstars in your team should be solved. Sure, you will still be able to overhaul the team, but not the 1st line, as there will remain your stars from starting roster.
The only way how to bring superstar to your team will be from FA or develop your own draftees.
My main concern about bringing reputation into play in trades is that we've seen reputation change quickly in the past. Remember when reputation came into play on UFA signing? We were seeing players' reputation change (for better or for worse) after they were signing. This same thing might happen with trades. Also, we'd need a screenshot of the players' reputation in addition to the normal screenshot of the trades screen. We don't want to over-complicate things. I don't think we should get into a minimum number of games played before a player can be traded because once again, that complicates things and requires yet another screenshot.
I think a restriction limiting trades to 1-1 might be a good idea. As several have pointed out, you can get star players with a 2-1 deal. 1-1 would prevent that. What do you guys think about allowing trading starting in season 1 but not allowing any after season 3? This would limit trading to only 1-1 deals and only for the first 3 seasons. So that's only 3 trades possible for the entire challenge. That should help maintain the identity of the team.
I also agree with Lidas' idea about further restricting UFA signings. I think $2M might still be too much money to allow for a UFA signing. We're seeing people signing players that can make a difference with that $2M, especially as the game progresses and teams are up against the cap with less money to spend on UFAs. Maybe this needs to be cut down to $1.25M or just $1M?
I see major issue with limiting trades only to the first 3 years. What to do with your team then? I'm afraid that in later years the game will become boring, as we'll be allowed only to sign FAs. That's one change per year (from 4th season) and that's as unrealistic as some of current trades.
1-1 trades for all seasons should do the trick
Or what about something like this (from 2nd season):
1-1 Very Good(reputation of player coming in)
2-2 Good/OK/Normal
trading for Star/Superb not allowed
Overall this limitation for trades leads challenges to be more about coaching then about managing... You know what I mean. But I don't know how to avoid it
Like it said, using reputation to is an interesting idea but it's a pain to manage. Too many screenshots.
The reason I suggested limiting trading to just the first 3 seasons is because at that point you should have some players coming onto your team that you have developed. You'll have players that have spent some time with your AHL affiliate that will be ready to make the jump to the NHL. Some of these guys might have been there since you started the game, other might have come over from Europe and played a couple seasons in the AHL to get accustomed the North American pro game, or maybe even players that you drafted yourself and developed.
These kind of changes definitely lead the challenge towards coach more than management but it also makes it about developing your own talent.
Right now it's all just ideas I'm tossing out there. Our next challenge will almost certainly be with a Canadian Junior team. So a lot of this won't even matter right away.
IMHO I think that we should have one 1-1 trade allowed per season - even after S3. The main reason is that there are quite few managers who play more than 3 seasons, and removing the trade after S3 might force more managers to drop out. Making it reputation based it a good idea, but it requires too much effort with taking and checking screenshots, and as already mentioned, player reputation can suddenly jump up or down.
Also, no roster changes during the first season, just like we have it now.
As for the UFA signing, how about allowing 1.2M to spend freely on UFAs. You can spend the entire budget on one player, or divide it into two.
Yeah you have to have trades after season 3. Maybe loosen the limits so you can make 2-2 trades after season 3, but not 2 for 1.
Actually, now that I write that....you could make trade limits such that you must deal out the same # of players you bring in. Maybe only 1-1 for seasons 1 and 2, and then after that allow 2-2 for a few seasons, and once you get to say season 5 or 6.
You may also say all trades 1-1 but that every 3 or 4 seasons you can make ONE blockbuster deal if you wish, as long as you are shipping out the same # of players you bring in. of course no blockbusters allowed until at least season 3...
I think this will also encourage people to play further into the challenge. Allow a blockbuster say in season 4 only, or season 5...and you may get more guys playing that far.
I hadn't really thought about people not playing too many seasons if we cut the trading later. That's a good point. So let's get rid of that idea. We'll allow at least one 1-1 deal each season. I can also see why we might not want any roster changes in season 1. It forces people to become familiar with the team they start with. I just hate seeing so many people tank the first season to get Hall or Fowler and then they're much stronger in future seasons. It's almost like you get screwed for doing well in that first season because you don't get one of those guys.
I think Lidas' idea on UFA signings is perfect. We should put that into effect on our next NHL challenge.
I see the appeal of Batdad's idea on trades (1-1 and 2-2). I just wonder if it will get some folks confused. Lidas' strict 1-1 keeps things simple and less likely to become a mess. Plus, 2-2 deals can be abused. There are some 2-2 deals that wouldn't seem to unbalance things, like my deal for Petrecki and Couture for example. But then there are deal where people could land an Eric Staal or a Malkin. How do we restrict that without getting involved in too many screenshots? Also, in regards to your season 4 "blockbuster deal", what would qualify as a "blockbuster" for the challenge?
A blockbuster trade is just a bigger than regularly allowed deal...
A 3 for 3 trade for example.
It could be something which you allow the deal of a pick or the deal of an unsigned prospect on either side of the trade....going out or coming in.
Something which...yes will allow for a superstar deal..but only once.
A max of 3 entiites (player, pick, prospect) on each side of the deal in the "BLOCKBUSTER" and do not allow until Trade Deadline of season 4....
And only 1...
Gives guys something to wait for and keep playing for if they are not doing well or getting annoyed. Just a little reward for playing so long into the challenge.
Then once you make that deal...back to 1-1 or 2-2.
I do understand about 2-2 deals making superstar trades easier. But if you go 1-1 only, many are going to get frustrated and they are going to stop playing...unless...maybe the Blockbuster is added in...1-1 deals can also bump you up quick because a guy like Gagner is so overrated...may be able to deal him for a slightly underperforming star.
The blockbuster idea is definitely an interesting one and it sounds fun, especially since I haven't played the game with that kind of big trading in ages now. I just wonder how well it could be implemented. I'm going to save that idea and we'll look at it again before our next NHL challenge.
I totally understand how the 1-1 could occasionally be abused the same way the 2-2 can be abused. I just don't think it's going to happen as often. The 2-2 is where things can really get bad. I wonder if some of the abuse could be eliminated by putting a minimum age on players involved in trades? That way it would make it so that people don't trade over-valued prospects. I'm sure some people are signing players as soon as they draft them and then sending them back to junior for a season so they can trade them a season later.
The blockbuster idea is GREAT! It will motivate players to reach that point (3rd or 4th season) and from then the challenge will be significantly new. The team will be refreshed and another era of challenge begins.
I can toss my another idea here. What about bonusing players with less trades? I think that players make trades just to make a trade. Because everyone does it, so why not me? I'd be disadvantaged if I don't make a trade.
I agree, McQwak. I'd like to see users that don't make trades get some sort of bonus. I just don't know if Archi can add another bonus into the scoring database without making a ton of work for him. It's worth looking into though.
The idea of a blockbuster trade gave me an idea for a challenge. I've never competed in one (as far as I can recall; none of my old posts seem to be around), but I notice they all seem to have a common element; find a team, use what assets you have, then slowly purge what you don't need in order to build a contender. Most people here though are good enough at managing tactics that sometimes in season one or two, they can make an NHL also ran into a champion by making the most of average seeming assets.
I think that lowering the bar is required.
The rules would be slightly different; I think that trading and free agent signing would need to be opened up a little in order to make it work, so I think that the restrictions of "x amount per season" could go by the wayside. But there would be three key rules I would to impliment.
1. No trades can be made that result in a gain of salary. That would prevent people from picking up 6 million a year superstars for their third liner/perenial farmhands.
2. No trading for, or trading of, anyone that hasn't played an NHL game, or any draft picks.
3. When signing a UFA, anyone is fair game UNLESS they played an NHL game the previous season.
I would think that maybe the third rule could be relaxed if the team, in years two and beyond, made the playoffs the previous season. That way the team would have something appealing to a player, whereas if they are still in the basement, they are not attractive enough to entice NHL players to join a bottom feeding team.
I think those rules would prevent a team from upgrading from mediocre assets to better pieces, and would prevent a team from abusing excess cap space thanks to tons of cheap entry level superstars to entice in the key roleplayers to make a cup run. It would make a rebuild take longer and be more difficult.
To start the game, I would propose taking a team and gutting it, keeping only one player of superstar quality. I think Tavares in New York is a good idea because 1. he's young, 2. he's good but he's not Ovechkin destroy the universe good, 3. Wang and Snow are crazy enough to make any absurd idea feasible. Then, modify the database so that all of the players who have contracts with NYI are signed instead to an AHL team (Bridgeport might work, or maybe disperse them) and are available to every NHL team in the league (except New York Islanders, since they'd have to work with rule 3). Keeping the unsigned prospects as property of the team would be optional as well, but might help keep things from dragging too much.
Anyway, once you have a bare team with 1 superstar and absolutely nothing else, you'd have to fill the roster with players but would be unable to bring in NHL quality players. That would make for, year one, a predictably BRUTAL team since it would be filled with career AHLers and some foreign imports. It would require great drafting, godly prospect development, and a LOT of patience to get to the point where the idea of a Malkin joining your team is even possible (can you imagine how many ex-DEL players it would take to equal Malkin's skill level?). It wouldn't be a short challenge since I don't think any team could win a cup in the first year with 1 player, but it might be a really fun challenge as we see the various ways different managers eventually fill out their roster.
It's an idea. It might be a lot of work to impliment and I dunno if anyone else would enjoy playing with a team that was THAT bad, but I'd enjoy it.
Interesting ideas, VANSDM, but I think that kind of a setup could still easily be abused. An unlimited number of trades is going to be easy to rebuild with, even if you can't take more salary than you're giving up. It's very rare that I take on more salary than I give up, even in our restricted trading. If we were allowed to trade as much as we want, we could make deals where we put together our over-paid players and trade them for quality.
Our next challenge will be with a Canadian Junior team, so the rules shouldn't be too different for now. Our next NHL challenge could implement some of the rule changes discussed in this thread though.
It's good to hear that next challenge will be with canadian juniors.
Could someone be so kind and write brief notes about rules in the chosen league? I'm afraid not all of us are familiar enough with such league. I mean min/max age, some vets limit, drafts in league, possible clauses, salary cap...
Thanks.
THe biggest problem with Canadian juniors at the moment is the bantam draft is not working properly, at least with Lidas 2.1.
I've only played the WHL so not sure if ALL rules like roster size are the same?
Bantam draft is the main feed... players drafted at 15 cannot be signed till 16
Min age is 16 but only 2 16's can dress per game
Max age is 20.... called overage and 3 are allowed per team
Foreigners- 2 signed per team... players generally drafted in the CHL import draft
Roster size is 50 including unsigned prospects
The Bantam draft comes before the playoffs and Memorial cup are over so if you play deep into the playoffs you will surely have issues as the bantam draft has 15 rounds. I rarely keep even ten protected due to roster limitations.
Standard player contract is 1.5k/yr
Age of players is approx since players are drafted after their second Bantam season and at the time of the draft may be 14 or 15. The same goes for the 20 year olds which may turn 21 before the season ends. I'll try to answer any more questions and offer any advice if needed
